Category Archives: Second Amendment

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Liberals may simply try to wish away the crime but a 17-year-old girls brush with death, and subsequent use of a gun, shows without a doubt that the Second Amendment saves.

The story of Kimber Woods, who fired into the ground and scared away a home intruder, is one for the political books. Strangely, liberals are pretty silent on it, though.

Woods was alerted by her boyfriend of a possible burglar, called her dad to ask if she could use a gun, and when told yes, slid one under her pillow. When the burglar did indeed enter her home, Woods pulled out the firearm and pointing it right at his face, demanding he leave. For extra emphasis, she ran outside and fired a shot into the ground.

The burglar fled. Mission accomplished.

Nobody was even physically harmed.

This is how the Second Amendment works.

I know how to use the gun and it gave me a peace of mind that I had the upper hand and I was going to be safe, Woodstold Breitbart in an interview.

So why isnt Woods being lauded throughout the mainstream media as a hero? Why isnt she being mentioned by, say, left-leaning politicos on CNN as a solid example of why the Second Amendment is needed in modern times?

Because Woods doesnt fit the narrative of the gun-controlling left.

Woods experience demonstrates aptly why more guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans, not fewer, bring safety to citizens, particularly for women. Guns are equalizers. Theyre what give a 17-year-old girl the ability to stand down a threatening, perhaps brutal, home intruder, no matter his size, no matter his strength.

Firearms training among Americas youth as Woods underwent, from about the age of 6 or 7, she said is actually a proper lesson plan for parents to follow. The left will cover its ears and eyes at such a notion. But Woods story shows clearly: The constitutional right to carry is indeed a lifesaver for the innocent.

Follow this link:
Girl with gun makes clear 2nd Amendment saves - Washington Times

By Dean Weingarten

Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- In August, 2016, two professors from the University of Austin, Texas, and an Associate Teaching Assistant Professor, sued the Attorney General of Texas, Ken Paxton, the President of the University of Texas, Austin, and the Members of the Board of Regents of the University of Texas at Austin.

A number of frivolous claims were offered in an attempt to stop the Texas statute allowing exercise of the Second Amendment on Campus from going into effect.

The claims included that the law is vague, the law violated the plaintiffs' First Amendment, Second Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The arguments were childish, irrational, emotional rants.

Here is an example:

48. The Texas statutes and university policies that prohibit Plaintiffs from exercising their individual option to forbid handguns in their classrooms violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied in Texas through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. These policies and procedures deprive Plaintiffs of their Second Amendment right to defend themselves and others in their classrooms from handgun violence by compelling them as public employees to passively acquiesce in the presence of loaded weaponry in their place of public employment without the individual possession and use of such weaponry in public being well-regulated. This infringement lacks any important justification and is imposed without any substantial link between the objectives of the policies and the means chosen to achieve them.

Judge Lee Yeakel heard the claims, read the suit, and concluded that the plaintiffs had no standing because they had not suffered any harm.

From reporternews.com:

A federal judge has dismissed a long-shot lawsuit filed by three University of Texas at Austin professors seeking to overturn the state's 2015 campus carry law, which allows people to carry concealed handguns inside most public university buildings.

District Judge Lee Yeakel wrote in his decision that the professors Jennifer Lynn Glass, Lisa Moore and Mia Carter couldn't present any concrete evidence to substantiate their fears that campus carry would have a chilling effect on free speech.

From the decision, at texasattorneygeneral.gov(pdf):

The court concludes that Plaintiffs have not established an injury-in-fact, nor that the alleged injury is traceable to any conduct of Defendants. Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 180-81. Accordingly, the court will dismiss this cause for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Crane v. Johnson, 783 F.3d 244,251 (5th Cir. 2015). (Because [appellants] have not alleged a sufficient injury in fact to satisfy the requirements of constitutional standing, we dismiss their claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.)

III. CONCLUSION

IT IS ORDERED that UT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (Clerk's Doc. No. 64) and Defendant Ken Paxton's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint (Clerk's Doe. No. 65) are GRANTED

The results of the lawsuit are were expected. The claims were frivolous to those who actually read them.

It took nearly a year for the court to reach that conclusion. Some Minnesota students attempted to duplicate the Texas protests. No serious incidents have been associated with the restoration of Second Amendment freedoms on Campus. Other than the Minnesota copy cat protests, protests related to Texas Campus Carry have withered away. 2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Link to Gun Watch

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

View post:
Anti-Second Amendment Academics Shot Down in Texas Case - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Australians have long been wary of Americas Second Amendment. Last weeks fatal shooting of an innocent Australian woman in Minnesota has only stoked their fears.

Justine Damond, 40, had called the police to report a local crime in Minneapolis. In the midst of some confusion, the officers she had called ended up accidentally shooting her to death.

In the aftermath of the tragedy, Australian media is fuming over Americas relaxed gun laws. Australia has some of the strictest gun laws in the world - why can't America learn from them, they wonder.

A Daily Telegraph headline read, AMERICAN NIGHTMARE.

This country is infested with possibly more guns than people, Philip Alpers, a gun policy analyst from the University of Sydney, told the Associated Press.

Its not just the media that want answers. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull alsowants the U.S. to address the shocking shooting.

"How can a woman out in the street in her pyjamas seeking assistance from the police be shot like that?" he asked.

"It is a shocking killing, it is inexplicable.

"Yes, we are demanding answers on behalf of her family and our hearts go out to her family and all of her friends and loved ones."

More details emerged Wednesday into what transpired in the moments before the shooting. An officer reportedly heard a loud noise on the scene, leading to the deadly confusion.

Near the end of the alley, a loud sound startled Harrity. A moment later, Justine Damond, the woman who had called 911, approached the drivers side of the squad car. Suddenly a surprise burst of gunfire blasted past Harrity as Noor fired through the squads open window, striking Damond in the abdomen.

The two officers began lifesaving efforts, but within 20 minutes Damond was dead.

No, Trump Isn't Primarily to Blame for the GOP's Healthcare Struggles

View original post here:
Australians Sound Off on Second Amendment After Fatal Shooting - Townhall

NORTHWEST ARKANSAS - Your right to bear arms in Arkansas could be taken away if you apply for a medical marijuana card. According to the Arkansas Department of Health, you can't have both a medical marijuana card and legally own a gun because pot is still illegal on the federal level.

Robert Reed, a Navy Veteran who served his country for 16 year, suffers PTSD along medical conditions which medical marijuana would help.

Reed said, "I will not apply for a med license, and risk my livelihood and my safety."

The Arkansas Department of Health said a question they get all the time is whether or not you can own a gun and possess a medical marijuana ID card. Since prescription pot is a Schedule 1 controlled substance, under federal law, you can't own a gun legally. And federal law supersedes state law.

"If they're a user of marijuana, although legal in Arkansas, it's still illegal on the federal level," explained Robert Brech with Arkansas Department of Health. "It's very clear you cannot be a marijuana user, and pass that check."

Reed, and other veterans who fought for Constitutional rights, will not apply for their medical marijuana cards due to putting the freedom they fought for at risk.

"You've got a law that outlaws the people that defended your right to make a law that puts me in jail," said Reed.

"You won't be denied the medical marijuana card. There's actually a provision in the Constitutional amendment that you can't be denied a license. So they may continue to give a conceal carry license to someone. It's really a problem at the federal level, not the state level," explained Brech.

"How can I have health and freedom by giving up a right? I can't," said Reed.

More:
Medical Marijuana means Losing Your Second Amendment Rights - KNWA

Editor:

Too often when liberals, in general, read the Constitution they pick and choose the wording they want to follow. Armed Teachers a Bad Idea (published in the July 11 edition of the Uinta County Herald) is a perfect example of this. To make my point, in italics is the whole Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Of course, liberals with their typical big-government beliefs will only see the words well regulated and it stops there.

The first question I have to ask is who are the militia? By definition they are a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army.

So, we, the people, are the militia, and in order to keep a free state around the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Does it say what kind of weapons I can and cant own? No, it doesnt. A group of men known as the founders had just spent years fighting a tyrannical government with the same weapons the government had.

So, the second the government makes any law restricting people from owning the type of weaponry they can afford and desire, they are in violation of the Second Amendment.

For all of the Christians out there, Luke 22:36 says, Then said he unto them, but now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Its plain and simple that you should own and familiarize yourself with weapons.

And now onto the part that really just confused me more than anything. What about the childs psyche? Most of us have been around or involved with firearms since we were children. Some of us parked off school property so we could leave our rifles in our trucks and go hunting after school.

Guns dont commit crimes and criminals dont care about laws.

I read the comments on the website and I have to applaud most of you for actually giving it traffic. However, there are a few things I would like to clarify.

I took an oath 10 years ago. I was disqualified from serving due to my medical record but I still took an oath; to some people that means something. Secondly, I agree that teachers need sufficient training breach and clear techniques need to be taught.

Finally, I am not a gun nut, I just understand the Constitution as what it is, a legal document.

Patrick Ballinger

Evanston

View original post here:
Letter: Understanding the Second Amendment - Uinta County Herald

The would-be foster parents, William and Jill Johnson, were trying to secure custody of their grandson when William was reportedly told he had to hand over the serial numbers for every gun in the home to complete the process.William claims the caseworker said, If you want to care for your grandson you will have to give up some of your constitutional rights.

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb told Breitbart News that this sacrifice of Second Amendment rights includes having no guns for self-protection at home or carried on ones person. And in a press release sent to Breitbart News, SAF pointed out that aGogebic County Court judge allegedly told Williams he had to comply with caseworkers gun control request if he wanted the foster acquisition to succeed.

According to the SAF press release,

The policy of the MDHHS, by implementing requirements and restrictions that are actually functional bans on the bearing of firearms for self-defense, both in and out of the home, completely prohibits foster and adoptive parents, and those who would be foster or adoptive parents, from the possession and bearing of readily-available firearms for the purpose of self-defense. This violates Plaintiffs constitutional rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

The release quoted Gottlieb saying, The statements from the caseworker and judge are simply outrageous. This amounts to coercion, with a child as their bartering chip. I cannot recall ever hearing anything so offensive and egregious, and weve handled cases like this in the past. Blatantly telling someone they must give up their civil rights in order to care for their own grandchild is simply beyond the pale.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host ofBullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter:@AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

More:
2nd Amendment Foundation Files Suit: Alleges Foster Parents Forced to Give Up Gun Rights for Child - Breitbart News

Guns seem to be a regular topic in the newspaper, along with references to the Second Amendment, which protects the citizens' right to keep and bear same.

I was curious, so I read it: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

As a strict constructionist, I would like to advocate for the intent of the writers of this article.

Seems to me that those who keep and bear arms ought to be enrolled in a well regulated militia, currently known as the National Guard or the military reserve. These citizens would be trained and ready should our nation require their services when we are threatened by Native Americans or forces of the British, French or Spanish governments.

We could even designate certain units for advanced training in nuclear weaponry, air combat, operation of a submarine or aircraft carrier, and special ops. We would no longer need a standing military force, since the citizenry would stand ready when needed. This could result in a great savings from the national budget, and allow Medicaid to become a national health care system.

If called, I will gladly bring my bow, arrows and slingshot.

William A. Kaeppel Florissant

Excerpt from:
Determining what the Second Amendment means for today - STLtoday.com

By Noah Shusterman By Noah Shusterman July 14 at 6:00 AM

Noah Shusterman is the author of "The French Revolution: Faith, Desire, and Politics," and is currently researching 18th-century militias. He teaches history at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Every year on July 14, France celebrates its national holiday, commemorating the storming of the Bastille in 1789. The festivities include fireworks, dances and a military procession through Paris.

Ironically, it was fear of the French army that first led Parisians to storm the Bastille. And distant though that event may be in both time and place, Americans should take note: this kind of scenario is why the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution exists. Both those storming the Bastille and those ratifying the Bill of Rights had a genuine fear of a standing army as the enemy of a true republic a fear that shows just how disconnected modern readings of the Second Amendment have become.

[Trump loves a military parade its one reason hes gone to Paris]

Gun rights advocates argue that the founders included the amendment to protect the people from a tyrannical government. To an extent, they are correct. But the founders were concerned about a specific kind of tyranny. They were worried about the same thing that the Parisians were worried about on the eve of the storming of the Bastille: that a despot would order his soldiers to attack the citizens. A citizens militia, by replacing the army, could prevent that scenario from happening.

In recent years, the idea of the Second Amendment as a justification for standing up to the government has become more popular. Todays visions of armed resistance, though, have become unhinged from the Amendments 18th-century moorings, in ways that make appeals to what the founders thought ring hollow. The story of the storming of the Bastille can help, by showing how an 18th-century Second Amendment solution was meant to work and how ideas of military service have changed since the Early Republic.

In early July 1789, Frances National Assembly was less than a month old. It represented a new beginning for a nation accustomed to absolutist rule. When the troops arrived in the region, Parisians believed that the king or someone close to him had ordered them to destroy the Assembly and put an end to Frances Revolution. This, in a nutshell, was the kind of action that the Second Amendment was meant to prevent.

Parisians were unwilling to wait andsee what would happen. On July 12, on the initiative of the citys government, Parisian men began arming and organizing themselves into a militia. In a well-constituted state, one city leader told a town meeting, every citizen is obliged to bear arms in defense of the fatherland.

By the morning of July 14, 1789, tens of thousands of Parisian men had joined the new militia. They seized guns from a Paris arsenal. Lacking gunpowder and ammunition, they attacked the Bastille prison, which had a large supply inside its walls. The storming of the Bastille had begun.

It had begun, moreover, so that the Parisian citizens, organized into a militia and under local government leadership, could fight against Frances professional army. This, in a nutshell, was the Second Amendment solution, tested two months before the Bill of Rights and with it, the Second Amendment would be written, and two years before itwould be added to the Constitution.

To be clear, there was no causal link between the storming of the Bastille and the writing of the U.S. Bill of Rights. Both, though, borrowed from the same groups of ideas. Americans were even more fearful than the French of a standing army of professional career soldiers. For the founders, such an army was incompatible with a free society, because salaried career soldiers were loyal to their leaders, not to the society they served. Kings or generals could order their soldiers to do anything, including marching on the citizens themselves. That Frances king could order his troops into the Paris region seemed to confirm such fears.

How could a society defend itself, though, without relying on professional soldiers? The 18th-century answer to standing armies was the citizens militia, in which all citizens were part-time militiamen. In any other society, freedom existed at the whim of the military leaders, but an armed, trained, and organized society depended only on itself. Hence the militias necessity to a free state.

The Second Amendment said all of this in its first 13 words A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state without spelling it out as explicitly as it might have. Virginias 1776 Bill of Rights made the links clearer: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power. The phrasing was different but the ideas were the same: for a society to be free, there could be no professional army. Citizens had to be soldiers, and soldiers citizens.

At the Bastille, French citizens were putting those ideas into action. Storming the prison began as a means to an end, a way to better prepare Parisians to face off against the army. Once the attackers took over the prison, though, the gunpowder became an afterthought. A multiday celebration began.

Still, the militia formed during the preceding days remained in place. Thomas Jefferson, in France at the time, wrote of 50, or 60,000 men in arms in Paris. The king ordered his soldiers back to the border.

The people, armed, organized and under the leadership of the local government, had stood up to Frances Royal Army, and the king had backed down. This was the kind of resistance to the government that the founders had in mind, and it was a far cry from the kinds of resistance seen or even proposed in the United States today.

Over the past two centuries, changes in public perception of the military have made the original vision of the Second Amendment unrecognizable. The nation has moved away from the mandatory militia service that the founders took from granted. As part-time militia service became unpopular among citizens, Americans came to embrace their professional army, and being a career soldier became the highest form of patriotism.

As a result, it has become harder to understand what these well regulated militias were and why they were necessary for the security of the free state. But the storming of the Bastille serves as a reminder that those who would haul out the founders to defend the modern Second Amendment would do well to remember how much American society has changed since the 1790s.

See more here:
Bastille Day reminds us that our Second Amendment debates are distorted - Washington Post

Interviews from the past several years provide clear insight into the Romeo, Michigan, natives position on firearms.

During an April 13, 2013, interview, then-CNN host Piers Morgan asked Kid Rock if he owned a lot of guns and he responded, Yes, tons. Morgan then asked if Kid Rock was safe with his guns, to which he responded, Yes. Morgan then appeared to search for a flaw he could exploit by asking, Why do you trust 315 million other Americans to be safe with them?

Kid Rock simply smiled and said, Cause I got one.

Morgan asked, Do you need to have one for protection? Kid Rock responded, I need to have one. When I go to Detroit, I am never in Detroit without my gun. Ever. Right by my sideloaded, ready. Morgan added, And you wouldnt hesitate to use it? to which Kid Rock replied, No, not at all.

Love for firearms check.

Firearms are for self-defense check.

Now, how about hunting?

On June 20, 2016, Kid Rock gave an interview to Petersens Hunting in which he explained that Hank Williams Jr., introduced him to hunting and the two now share ownership of some hunting grounds in Alabama. Kid Rock said, I always loved guns, but we never really hunted. [Hank]got me into it, and I finally got the itch. I got the bug. The more time I spent with Hank, well, he just doesnt do much other than hunt, collect guns, and make music. Going to visit him in Tennessee and Alabama was what hooked me. I have to give all the credit to him.

When Petersens asked Kid Rock how he responds to anti-hunting propaganda in 21st-century America, he said:

I like win-wins in life. I like things that are all positive. To me, thats hunting. You form bonds with other hunters, you eat healthier, and you become better at, well, life. I see hunting as an American tradition. Its a rite of passage to me. Theres so much family and friendship involved that its really just the backbone of this country.

It is interesting to note that Kid Rock celebrated Donald Trumps presidential victory by releasing a t-shirt emblazoned with the words, God, Guns & Trump. Now might be the time for aGod, Guns, & Senator Kid Rock t-shirt; it could be a shirt made to celebrate the fact that a Second Amendment candidate is running against gun control Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host ofBullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter:@AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

See original here:
What Senator Kid Rock Might Mean for the Second Amendment - Breitbart News

We recently celebrated Independence Day, and now that the echoes of the fireworks have faded, the hot dogs eaten and the bunting put away, lets reflect on what it really means.

At the heart of it is the Second Amendment.

Its customary on national holidays to express appreciation for people in the military and veterans. They indeed deserve the recognition and gratitude of the citizenry they serve.

However, those who fought in the American Revolution were not professional soldiers, sailors or marines. They were farmers, shopkeepers and tradesmen. They were revolutionaries.

They knew there would be bloodshed and violence when they signed the Declaration of Independence because monarchs, even as urbane and sophisticated as Englands king, do not give up power easily.

The American Revolution was indeed bloody and long. After it ended, when the men who fought in it took the reins of government themselves, they continued to think like revolutionaries rather than as noblemen with some divine right to rule. To their credit, they wanted to ensure American citizens never lost the ability to take back control of the government, through violent means if necessary.

They expected another revolution, perhaps in their own lifetimes. So, they saw the need to state explicitly in the Bill of Rights that citizens have a right to bear arms in order to be able to launch armed uprisings against the government.

Hunting was such a common activity in the 18th century that it never entered the minds of people then that it would require any constitutional protections. But armed revolt was something that dictators have always harbored an interest in preventing, and so the purpose of the amendment was to ensure no king, tyrant or democratic government would stand in the way.

No careful reading of history can lead to any other conclusion on the amendment's meaning.

Understanding how the authors interpreted the Constitution is important because it is a contract of sorts. Courts evaluate contracts in light of the meaning attached to phrases by the people entering into the agreement, in this case the Founding Fathers and the citizens of the states that ratified the Bill of Rights. Meanings change over time, but the only way to change the terms of a contract is to amend it. The Constitution has a process for amending it.

If you think the need for the Second Amendment to arm future revolutionaries is no longer valid because human nature has changed or 250 years of legal precedent is an ironclad safeguard, then it should be amended through the assent of the citizens who are a party to the agreement.

However, it would be wrong to attempt to change the interpretation of the words to reflect modern thinking the way some judges suggest when they describe the Constitution as "a living document." Because if it is that easy to do for one provision, then it could be easily done for others. And all citizens have an interest in safeguarding our personal liberties.

More:
Independence Day and the Second Amendment - Newnan Times-Herald